You are here

Archived: Moorside Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 November 2012
Date of Publication: 8 December 2012
Inspection Report published 8 December 2012 PDF | 80.95 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 November 2012, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and they were acted upon.

There had not been any formal complaints made about the service. However there was information about how people could make a complaint on display in the hallway. Staff said that any concerns or issues were addressed informally during meetings.

We saw that a number of meetings took place regularly. Each meeting addressed issues raised by a particular sector within the home. These included catering, nursing and care.

There were resident group meetings. Minutes of one meeting that we saw showed that people had discussed food. At this meeting, people had talked about what they liked to eat and this information had been passed to the chef. There were also regular relative meetings. Relatives said that they were kept well informed about changes in the home, and were made aware of any recent literature relating to their family members condition for example, information about dementia.

People who lived at the service and their relatives were provided with surveys every year. These asked people their opinions about the quality of care. This included questions about staff attitudes, facilities, quality of care, cleanliness and range of activities. The results of these surveys were analysed. People were very satisfied with the service provided. Suggestions for minor improvements, such as a change to a menu had been addressed.

The quality of the service was also monitored by regular visits from a senior manager within the organisation.

Staff said that the manager was present at staff handovers to ensure that she was aware of any day to day issues.